Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Woodley v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Duke Woodley filed a § 1983 complaint against Ronald Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The district court denied relief and Woodley appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 10, 1995 order denying relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-01-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-7317

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Duke Woodley filed a § 1983 complaint against Ronald Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The district court denied relief and Woodley appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 10, 1995 order denying relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Woodley v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Duke Woodley filed a § 1983 complaint against Ronald Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections. The district court denied relief and Woodley appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and district court opinion and affirmed based on the reasoning provided by the district court in its August 10, 1995 order denying relief. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-7317

    DUKE E. WOODLEY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-95-177-3)
    Submitted:

    November 21, 1995

    Decided:

    January 4, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed
    the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Woodley v. Angelone, No. CA-95-177-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10,
    1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like